Gujarat High Court dismisses PIL for release of survey report on Somnath Temple site, imposes ₹2 lakh costs

The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking disclosure of an alleged archaeological survey report relating to the Somnath Temple site, calling the plea "wholly misconceived" [Dr Vilas Tukaram Kharat v. The Union of India & Ors].

A Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray observed that the petition was founded on incorrect, misleading and distorted facts. The Court noted that the PIL primarily relied on newspaper reports and social media posts, and lacked any authentic material to substantiate its claims.

Observing that such petitions erode the sanctity of public interest litigation, the Court dismissed the plea.

"This petition thus, is found to have been filed with incorrect, misleading and distorted facts and being in the nature of Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained as it would cause damage to the sanctity of the benevolent cause of law of Public Interest Litigation evolved by the Apex Court," observed the Court in the June 25 judgement.

Holding that the petitioner had abused the Court's process, the Bench imposed exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh on him.

The petitioner, a resident of Maharashtra, had sought directions to the Union government, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and other authorities to place in the public domain a 32-page scientific archaeological survey report, ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey records, maps, photographs, videography and other documents allegedly prepared by IIT Gandhinagar concerning the Somnath Temple site.

He had also sought directions for preservation of archaeological material and its accessibility for academic and historical research.

The High Court, however, found multiple defects in the PIL. It pointed out that the petition incorrectly stated that the Shree Somnath Trust was constituted under the "Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955", whereas the State government informed the Court that no such enactment exists.

The Court further found that the petitioner's own pleadings showed that the factual assertions were based on newspaper reports and social media posts rather than verified material.

"The contentions made in the writ petition that all information disclosed therein are based on some news items, published in the print media as well as information on social media, are sufficient to dismiss the writ petition outrighlty, inasmuch as, none of the statements made in the writ petition can be verified by the petitioner being true to his personal knowledge or based on any authentic record or material read over or researched by him."

The Court also noted that the petition was not properly verified, as the accompanying affidavit failed to clearly disclose the source of the petitioner's information or knowledge.

"It is more than evident that the petitioner herein is an unscrupulous person who has filed the Public Interest litigation with incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts, evidently with ulterior motives, or to gain undue publicity," observed the Court.

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh to the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Advocates Miren Priyadarshi and Ratna Vora appeared for the petitioner.

Government Pleader Gursharan H Virk along with Assistant Government Pleader Dharitri Pancholi and Advocate Devanshee N Kariel represented the State.

Advocate Prutha Bhavsar represented the Union of India.

[Read Judgment]